what P.E.T.A doesnt tell you

Originally posted by ANOK

Nicely wrapped up at the grocery store you don't have to witness the fear, pain and disgusting conditions the animal you eat has gone through.

I have over a hundred pounds of game meat in the freezer right now. I butchered all of it, but didn't make the sausage--I let an expert do that. I have made my own sausage. Still love it. . . . oh yeah, you were talking about most people, not me.

The meat you eat has feces, urine and puss from wounds in it, along with other nasty stuff.

I've worked in a slaughterhouse. Have you? In the US, meat gets inspected. Urine, puss and feces not allowed. In fact, meat is randomly sampled for e. coli (feces). The cause of it in the US several years ago turned out to be from hanging intestines, that brushed up against meat that was going to be ground. The new rules (2003?) require the intestines to be trayed, rather than hanged, and segregated from the rest of the meat. Not quite the same as "feces" in the meat, though.

Would you eat that piece of meat if you saw the cook crap and pee on it, then drop it on the floor before cooking it?
Well that's what happens to your meat at the slaughter house. But you don't have to see it, blinded to the reality.

Maybe that's why english cooking tastes so nasty? They could just as easily be doing that to your veggies, by the way.

Cows are often skinned alive, in the rush to get the product out many are not stunned when they are supposed to be.

Get real. Have you ever been around a live cow? A 1200 pound dying cow can maim or kill with its kicking and flailing about. THAT'S why they stun them with a hammer. I'd like to see the twit that tries to skin a cow alive, in a crowding alley!

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Stop with the juvenile fear-mongering already. It's not even believable.

Do animals in the wild cook their meat? Then why do you?

Because I have the intestinal tract of an omnivore, not a carnivore. But even carnivores like their meat cooked, when they can get it. At least my cat says so.

If eating plants is so natural, why don't you go eat 25 pounds of grass a day, like a beef would? Seriously; why don't you? Is my line any less insulting or ridiculous that yours? no.

The way we treat, slaughter and consume animals is far from natural.

You're right. We domesticated them, so they'd be easier to deal with, and provide meat more efficiently. And they have domesticated us, too. It's been going on for 10,000 years now.

But suddenly, in the last 30 years, we've become over-civilized. More and more people are totally disconnected from the process of producing their own food and other necessities. They are coming to view our most natural, basic activities as somehow bizarre or cruel. Realizing that they don't have the life-skills to survive beyond the walls of their own urban prisons, they try to deny anyone else's right to do so, either.

How are you any different from a religious zealot, telling me that I'm an immoral monster that won't be acceptable until I become JUST LIKE YOU.

how?

have you heard of VHEMT, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? They are people-haters, too. You might like them.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

I have over a hundred pounds of game meat in the freezer right now.

That's fine, I knew someone would say this. You are obviously not the average consumer.

I've worked in a slaughterhouse. Have you? In the US, meat gets inspected.

Every piece of meat does not get inpected, that would be impossible. The conveyor belt line of big slaughterhouses moves too fast to keep up with production for all the meat to get inspected. Workers cut corners to keep up. I haven't worked in a slaughterhouse but I've seen enough over the last 20 yrs.
A petition was made August 29, 2001 by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, to prevent and warn citizens about feces in meat.
Maybe the 2003 change fixed that, maybe....

US Agriculture Department is allowing companies to perform more of their own food safety inspections, two consumer groups and a labor union said on Tuesday

www.rense.com...

An example of your inspectors...

On August 25, 2000, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) was notified by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (MBAH) of Bacillus anthracis isolated from a steer on a farm in Roseau County, Minnesota.
A local veterinarian approved the slaughter of the cow for consumption by the farmer's family.

www.cdc.gov...

Maybe that's why english cooking tastes so nasty? They could just as easily be doing that to your veggies, by the way.

So what feces would be in veggies? Carrot crap

I'd like to see the twit that tries to skin a cow alive, in a crowding alley!

I estimate that 30 percent of the cows are not properly knocked [stunned] and get to the first legger alive….To still be alive at the second legger the cows have gone alive from the knocker to the sticker to the belly ripper (he cuts the hide down the center of the cow’s abdomen) to the tail ripper (he opens the [rectum]) to the first legger (he skins a back leg and then cuts off the foot) to the first butter (he skins from the breast to the belly and a little bit on the back) to the worker who cuts off both front feet. Those cows then go to a worker who sticks a hook into the joint where the first legger took off the foot and the cows are hung from the trolley hook. I can tell that these cows are alive because they’re holding their heads up and a lot of times they make noise.” This is an excerpt from the affidavit of a worker at the IBP, Inc. cattle slaughtering plant in Wallula, Washington.

www.awionline.org...

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Stop with the juvenile fear-mongering already. It's not even believable.

Hmmmm OK, am I hitting a nerve with this or what

Because I have the intestinal tract of an omnivore, not a carnivore. But even carnivores like their meat cooked, when they can get it. At least my cat says so.

So what did man eat before the discovery of fire? Would your cat still cook it's food if you weren't there to do it for her? My cat hates cooked food, so what does that mean?

You're right. We domesticated them, so they'd be easier to deal with, and provide meat more efficiently. And they have domesticated us, too. It's been going on for 10,000 years now.

Why is it you assume I hate Humans? All I've done is point out a few facts about the unnecessary bad treatment of animals. If you go out and kill your own food fine, I've got nothing against that at all. I've got nothing against eating meat, just the way it gets to your plate, and the way we are fooled into thinking its necessary for our health.
The way we raise animals for food is NOT natural in any way.
The way animals are raised for meat now is fairly new, where do you get 10,000 yrs from?

And if you care so much about Humans, do you know it takes more protein to feed a cow than protein you get from it?
Some facts for you...

20 vegetarians can live off the land required by one meat eater.
If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% it would free 12,000,000 tons of grain - enough to feed 60,000,000 people (the population of Great Britain).
If all Americans became vegetarian, it would free enough grain to feed 600,000,000 people (the population of India).
Due to overgrazing 850,000,000 people live on land threatened by desertification & over 230,000,000 already live on land so severely desertified that they are unable to sustain their existence & face imminent starvation.

www.flex.com...

It's you that don't care about Humans, all you care about is your stomach...

[edit on 20/7/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

So what feces would be in veggies? Carrot crap

Insect droppings, rodent droppings manure from compost, feces from agricultural workers. molds, bacteria, etc.

This is an excerpt from the affidavit of a worker at the IBP, Inc. cattle slaughtering plant in Wallula, Washington.

www.awionline.org...


Well, I worked at the Iowa Beef Packing Plant just north of Amarillo, Texas. It processed almost a third of the entire beef production of the whole United States. I never saw cattle belowing after they had been stunned. or flinching at the point where the rippers worked. In my own experience, the whole process was monitored minutely for maximum efficiency. The supervisors used the Ford assembly line model, and variation was removed in the name of maximum efficiency.

Animals writhing on the line is hardly efficient.

Temperature and meat samples were taken in a random and continuous process, and the results recorded and kept on permanent display . . . but again, I'm just one voice on a website. Like your own source . . .

So what did man eat before the discovery of fire?

probably what the other savannah-dwelling primates still eat: a mix of vegatal matter, with grubs, worms, and found carrion . . .

Why is it you assume I hate Humans? All I've done is point out a few facts about the unnecessary bad treatment of animals. If you go out and kill your own food fine, I've got nothing against that at all. I've got nothing against eating meat, just the way it gets to your plate, and the way we are fooled into thinking its necessary for our health.

Well, the vivesection photos had nothing to do with meatpacking procedures, did they? That was intended to shock and disgust people, as you said you hoped the would. Most adults don't try to freak people out, but hey, its all in the name of "converting them" right?

As far as the food is concerned, If I have no problem with the way I get my meat, why do you?

The way we raise animals for food is NOT natural in any way.
The way animals are raised for meat now is fairly new, where do you get 10,000 yrs from?

We've been domesticating animals for about 10,000 years. Castrating them, breeding them, de-horning them, etc. Of course it's not natural. Why is natural a good thing? Natural is dying with arthritis at age 35. . . .

20 vegetarians can live off the land required by one meat eater.

Depends on the land. In semi-temperate woodlands, that's certainly true. On the American prarie (which covers a third of the contiguous US land mass) A vegetarian cannot grow anything besides buffalo grass, without a lot of irrigation and human-made fertilizers, most of which are petroleum-based . . .

If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% it would free 12,000,000 tons of grain - enough to feed 60,000,000 people (the population of Great Britain).
If all Americans became vegetarian, it would free enough grain to feed 600,000,000 people (the population of India).

The problem of world hunger is not primarily caused by lack of food, but by distribution.

those numbers assume that all land is equally fertile for truck farming. Most of the grain in question is feed-grade wheat, which is again grown on American prarie, where little else besides domesticated grass grows. It isn't fit for human consumption; neither is #2 grade corn, which is the vast majority of American grain production.

#2 corn is a single cross (one cob per plant), and requires much less water per plant than #1 does. Food grade corn requires more than A GALLON OF WATER PER DAY, per plant, in order to produce ANY grain at all. So, unless humans are going to be fed rock-hard corn that will crack their omnivore teeth, you wouldn't be "freeing up grain" for human consumption; you'd be depleting your water supply. #2 corn can be made into hominy, but that again requires heavy processing.

Which is why beef ranching is so popular in the corn belt. . . using cattle to do the processing FOR us.

Soybeans, while building nitrogen into soils, are very demanding of other nutrients in the form of fertilizer, and require intensive processing for human consumption.

Due to overgrazing 850,000,000 people live on land threatened by desertification & over 230,000,000 already live on land so severely desertified that they are unable to sustain their existence & face imminent starvation.

www.flex.com...

This is only true if MEAT is the SOLE cause of Desertification. Desertification has many causes, including overgrazing. Overgrazing is a HUMAN PRACTICE, though, and is not essential to a diet containing some portion of meat or milk. Much of the world's desertified areas are not grazed for meat anyway, but for milk and cows blood products (africa).

It's you that don't care about Humans, all you care about is your stomach...

Not true at all. I respect people enough to want them to choose their own lifestyle, rather than trying to use guilt, gross-out, and emotional tactics to change them into clones of me. I think human happiness comes from informed choices, not from manipulating people.

Vegetarianism doesn't catch on because of the excessive emotionalism of its proponents. To a lot of outsiders, it seems like a cult that demands conformity and uses guilt and shame to coerce people into denying themselves of things they used to enjoy, in the name of a pre-set "morality."

All of the worst points of religion, without any forgiveness, or that salvation thingy at the end.

a real downer.

.

Look, no one is trying to force you to do anything.

Why do you get so defensive when your choice is questioned? Usualy indicates feelings of guilt

Yes the pics of the animals was meant to shock, cause most ppl don't realize what vivisection is all about. I've been to labs and seen the reality, it's extremely shocking, if you have any kind of compassion for life.
But I guess we should ignore it, hide it away, so not to scare anyone?

How else do you wake ppl up to such shocking abuse, this is reality and ppl should be made aware. I can tell it bothers you, as it should, from your reaction and you don't like it. But like most ppl you're stubborn and justify your actions anyway you can. It's not manly to not eat meat huh? I won't get enough protein, blah blah blah . Myths.

You act like I'm trying to take away something that would cause the downfall of the Human race. All I'm trying to point out is the unnecessary suffering of animals that can't speak out for themselves.

Do we have a right to torture animals so we can have luxuries that we really don't need? Or so scientists can see what happens if they stick a probe in a monkeys brain?
Most animal testing is totally unnecessary, but it gets a research grant for some egg head who thinks they're more important than life itself.

It's not an us and them thing, animals or Humans. Animal abuse and Human abuse go hand in hand. Do you really think I'd put an animal before a Human? That's redicularse. I care more about the starving millions than I do the cows.

People are starving because we eat meat, our hospitals are full of patience because they stuffed themselves with meat. More people die from heart disease than drug overdoses.

But let's just ignore all this, happy in our ignorance, who cares about starving people? The meat industry doesn't as long as their profits keep rolling in.
Who cares about animals being tortured in the name of science? Nobody, as long as they don't have to see it.

Wouldn't you give up a piece of steak to save a life?
It's just steak, not your family jewels. Instant gratification for the mouth, turns to clots in your arteries.

Have a nice day

Originally posted by Delta Alter
This programme purports to be informing us about the reality of PETA, but does nothing but serve as a platform for predictable and highly boring jokes revolving around vegetarian bashing and ridicule of people who care about animals.

I'm so tired of reading and watching propaganda about the animal rights movement. I don't care what two Moronic comedians think. This type of programme is poisonous. Informative? No, dangerous and misleading.

The vast majority of people involved in Animal Rights are peace loving, compassionate people who have NOTHING to do with terrorism. This programme is just so obvious in it's aims.

It's a sad, sorry world we live in

They didn't bash vegetarians. Nor did they pick on any peaceful animal rights groups. I haven't seen the season of this show, but in this particular episode, I think they hit it right.

Peta is nuts. And that's coming from an almost Organic Wholefood Vegan (I eat Seafood).

[edit on 7/20/2006 by Arcane Demesne]

Originally posted by ANOK
Look, no one is trying to force you to do anything.

Why do you get so defensive when your choice is questioned? Usualy indicates feelings of guilt

You're not just questioning. You're calling names and trying to upset people, again "for their own good." The cry of missionaries everywhere.

Yes the pics of the animals was meant to shock . .

Because you're not looking for a rational response; you enjoy upsetting people, instead of trying to convince them to make a rational choice. That's manipulation, and ultimately it alienates more people than it attracts.

I've been to labs and seen the reality, it's extremely shocking, if you have any kind of compassion for life.

Oh my. So the people trying to stop AIDS, ebola, et al, don't "have any compasson for life."

How else do you wake ppl up to such shocking abuse, this is reality and ppl should be made aware.

You begin by respecting your audience enough to reason with them, instead of trying to use guilt, shame and gross out. But if you don't have any rational arguments, then you go with the "kittie porn."

I can tell it bothers you, as it should, from your reaction and you don't like it. But like most ppl you're stubborn and justify your actions anyway you can. It's not manly to not eat meat huh? I won't get enough protein, blah blah blah . Myths.

Straw man argument, ad hominem attacks, have anything else in your arsenal?
Basically, if anyone disagrees with you, it's because they're dishonest . . .

You act like I'm trying to take away something that would cause the downfall of the Human race.

I think you're trying to do away with a lifestyle you don't agree with. That kind of controlling attitude IS causing the downfall of the human race, by assuming you know what's best for everyone.

Do we have a right to torture animals so we can have luxuries that we really don't need?

That's your own personal value judgment. One person's luxury is another's necessity. Personally, I think meat IS a necessity, particularly for poor and working-class people. Vegetarianism takes money, effort, and a degree of planning to get the proteins a person needs. You may possess the money, time and ability to plan a meat-free menu. Millions of other people don't have those luxuries, or don't want to spend them your way.

Or so scientists can see what happens if they stick a probe in a monkeys brain?
Most animal testing is totally unnecessary, but it gets a research grant for some egg head who thinks they're more important than life itself.

Maybe you have the luxury of seeing it that way. But when it's YOUR kid who is having grand mal epileptic seizures, suddenly probes in a monkey's brain starts looking like a viable research avenue.

Do you really think I'd put an animal before a Human? That's redicularse.

From your posts, I really think it.

I care more about the starving millions than I do the cows.

Yet you've obviously given a lot more thought and energy to helping the cows than you do to helping the humans.

People are starving because we eat meat

BS. People are starving because of drought, because of population pressures, and because their totalitarian governments use privation as a means of controlling people. No one is starving in Africa because I bought and paid for a hamburger

I know this will come as a total shock to you, but there is evil in the world that is completely independent of white people and their actions. Sometimes, a bad thing happens, and no citizen of a developed nation caused it.

our hospitals are full of patience because they stuffed themselves with meat.

HA. The geriatric patients are there because of meat? The victims of automobile accidents are there because of meat? Women get pregnant and have children because of meat? People have cataracts because of meat?

Our hospitals in the Southwestern US are full because of an influx of illegal aliens. Maybe they have stuffed themselves full of meat, too, though.

More people die from heart disease than drug overdoses.

And even MORE people from being really, really old. Does meat cause that, too?

But let's just ignore all this, happy in our ignorance, who cares about starving people?

Wouldn't you give up a piece of steak to save a life?

Have a nice day

I care about starving people. In the past week, I've spent 5 hours and a hundred miles in my own gasoline assisting a homeless shelter, bringing them food, and distributing it to the needy. Because I cannot do it on my lunch hour, I've started helping out after work, which takes time away from my family. But it was a shelter like that which helped me turn my life around, when I was falling down.

So yeah. I care about starving people. Enough to do something about it, instead of accusing strangers of being wicked and evil via the internet.

More than just having a nice day, I plan to help other people find a little niceness, too.


I hope you have a nice day, also. A nicer one than a lot of humans around the world will have today.

.

No one has said it yet, so let me go ahead:

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

Oh, and wasn't there a big controversy about PETA in the news not too long ago? Something about how they were caught killing a bunch of cats, dogs, etc. that they were supposed to be "humanely" caring for"? I'll see if I can find a link for it.

In the meantime, animals can not be given human rights and human protections under the law just because you feel sorry for them.

Someone else in this thread also mentioned what goes on in nature. For every animal eaten by humans, how many do you think are eaten by other (mean and blood-thirsty) animals?

What's next, saving the wild animals from themselves? Converting wild animals to be vegetarians?

Wait! I just thought of what comes next. A bunch of bleeding-heart do-gooders that decide that it's really mean and unfair for us to pick (get it?) on the plants the way we have been. Plants have feelings too, you know, because they've registered them on polygraph machines.

Bottom line for where this is all going - people protesting with signs that say: Bread is Murder



[edit on 7/20/2006 by centurion1211]

I have a few things to add in response to this as well.

Originally posted by ANOK
Why do you get so defensive when your choice is questioned? Usualy indicates feelings of guilt

My own nature in responding to this could seem defensive. That is true. I assure you, however, that I have no guilt about meat or using medicine that was tested on animals.

Yes the pics of the animals was meant to shock, cause most ppl don't realize what vivisection is all about.

Most of the photos that you find like that are taken in worst case scenarios in labs that should have their licenses revoked, and many of the workers should be jailed. Gross mistreatment of animals in labs is actually rather uncommon. The other source for such photos is post-autopsy on the animals used in testing. With the animal already dead, they can gut it all they want - just like a human autopsy. Autopsies are often done on lab animals posthumously to determine if the animal died from the substance being tested, other causes, or to harvest cells needed in the manufacture of drugs (yes folks, some of those little white pills you take for various ailments actually contain substances that can only be made in the body of an animal). Any post autopsy photo is going to be pretty messy. As far as the photo of the frozen cats, that is the typical means of storage of a dead animal before they can be properly disposed of (typically cremation). It's far more sanitary to deep freeze a dead animal, than to let it rot on a shelf.

I've been to labs and seen the reality, it's extremely shocking, if you have any kind of compassion for life.

I have been inside several labs as well. My girlfriend works in an animal testing lab (medical). I assure you, the animals are quite well taken care of. Remember, every lab in the US must answer to at least a dozen different groups regulating animal welfare. Some are domestic. Some are international. There are VERY stiff penalties for mistreatment of animals, including hefty fines and jail time, not to mention possible revocation of the lab's operating license.

Perhaps you should read a thread that was posted quite a while back, talking about common misconceptions in animal testing. The thread shoots down most of the arguments that PETA and other animal rights activists use to convert people. The thread is written by a woman that works in a major animal research facility.

Myths About Animal Research

How else do you wake ppl up to such shocking abuse, this is reality and ppl should be made aware.

By educating yourself thoroughly on both sides of the argument, presenting the facts to someone logically, and allowing them to make an informed decision, instead of simply presenting photos that appeal strictly to the emotional (and often irrational) side of humans, so that they make a hasty, uninformed decision.

But like most ppl you're stubborn and justify your actions anyway you can. It's not manly to not eat meat huh? I won't get enough protein, blah blah blah . Myths.

Honestly, medical science is still up in the air about nutritional needs of humans. There's a lot of evidence supporting an omnivorous diet, and a lot of evidence supporting a vegetarian diet. I am not a scientist, nor a nutritionist, but one thing I do know is the reason for food cravings. When your brain tells you that you really want to eat a banana, it's most likely because your body is telling your brain that you're low on potassium. When someone craves a steak, chances are, their body needs meat protiens. When I stop craving meat, I'll stop eating it. Until then, I'll trust my body to tell me what it needs.

Do we have a right to torture animals so we can have luxuries that we really don't need?

I don't really consider medicine and food luxuries. Without both of them, I wouldn't be alive today. Without animal testing/butchering for food in one form or another over the course of history, none of the human race would be alive today. Seems kind of necessary now, doesn't it?

Most animal testing is totally unnecessary, but it gets a research grant for some egg head who thinks they're more important than life itself.

Educate yourself a little bit (starting with reading the thread I linked to above), and learn just what exactly animals are being used to test. My girlfriend has been in the animal testing end of medical research for years, and I have yet to hear from her that some test was just for kicks. Typically the tests are on things such as vaccines, treatments, and new medical procedures (do you think laproscopy just occured to some doctor someday, who tried it on a patient on a whim?). The scope of diseases that are cured/treated by animal testing ranges from the lastest cold remedy all the way up to possible cures for cancer and AIDS. Polio has been virtually erradicated thanks to animal testing. That flu shot that's available every year, so you don't come down with the latest, nastiest version of the flu? Animal tested. If a monkey is getting a probe put in its brain, you sure as hell better believe there's a sound scientific reason for that, which will ultimately benefit either humans, animals, or both.

I care more about the starving millions than I do the cows.

And those starving millions can be fed with meat, and made healthier (thus having a longer life) through medicine tested on animals. This one sentence illustrates your hypocricy.

As I said, educate yourself on both sides of the issue, and educate yourself about how each side percieves the other, logically, rationally, emotionally, and irrationally. Understand what exactly happens in a research lab, and why it happens, and who dictates why it happens as it does.

I'll be the first to admit that often times animals raised for meat are kept in some pretty attrocious conditions. I'll admit that not every shot from the bolt gun actually kills an animal. I'm willing to live with that, because my body tells me it needs meat to survive (as well as plants). In this day and age of high-speed everything, and little time for leisurly pursuits (unless you're ultra wealthy, or your leisure mixes with your work), I don't have time to go wrangle a cow myself, slaughter it, and cook it up. I'm glad that I have people to do the wrangling and slaughtering for me.

Finally, if you don't like slaughterhouse conditions, then buy free-range meats. It'll cost you about twice as much.

I don't like kosher slaughtering methods, and as such, I won't buy kosher meats. Speaking of which, do a little looking up on kosher slaughtering methods, and tell me which is more humane - the typical slaughterhouse, or a kosher slaughterhouse.

I'll also remind you, I am an animal welfarist, and animal lover. I, myself, have a dog and two cats, that are like my children. I hate to see any animal mistreated, and will do everything I can to ensure an animal is treated well (my dog was rescued from the streets at 9 months old, pregnant, emaciated, and on the verge of death - she's now 5 years old, and very happy and healthy). I am NOT willing, however, to go to extremist levels often shown by animal rights activist groups such as PETA. Groups like PETA have failed to educate themselves on the issue, and instead prefer to live in ignorance, spouting propoganda and trying to appeal to the irrational, emotonal side of people.

[edit on 7/20/2006 by obsidian468]

I have not seen it mentioned here yet, but all primates eat meat. Not just grubs but actual meat. Baboons and Chimps will even eat each other.

I think the real issue here is that it should be a personal choice and not shoved down our throats by people who have a problem with us eating a natural diet. Being a vegetarian is not “natural”. It is a lifestyle choice.

I’ve even seen people who think Lobsters are suffering. Nonsense! Lobster don’t have a cerebral cortex and feel no pain or emotion. There are those who swear plants have emotion. Using the same logic eating a vegetable would be just as bad as eating meat. We are omnivores and no amount of junk science, lies or justification can change that. If I choose to eat the diet our species evolved to eat it just means I am normal.

We're leafy, We're Green, and we're in your face!

Does a grape not scream silently when plucked?

Who has not seen fruit "sweat" when freshly sliced? That orange juice squirting in your eye when you peel the fruit is the orange's attempt to fight back! Yeah - stick it to the MAN! (or woman or child . . . )

Millions of yeast dying tragically in your liver with every swig of brew?

Think of the germs you kill each night by brushing your teeth! For all you know, halitosis has feelings, too!


Spare the rudabaga, and spoil the kid. Or at least a small juvenile goat . . .

.

dr_strangecraft,

Your last post was just the kind of humor needed to get this thread out of the "serious debate, unwinnable by either side" atmosphere it had fallen into.

At the same time, I do find it still quite relevant to the thread, as the tactics you jokingly employed are the same tactics seriously employed by PETA and other animal activist groups.

People on both sides of this debate should be able to realize just how silly those tactics sound when put into a different perspective.

Some Animal testing truths and myths...

less than one of the four potential drugs that successfully negotiate the initial animal tests are ever approved by the FDA...
Of those drugs that are safe and efficacious in animals, the animal trials are no better than 50 per cent accurate in determining a drug's safety and efficacy.

Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science (London: Routledge, 1996), pp.27-28.

If testing drugs on animals is so good for us why do so many get withdrawn from use once they are found to course harm to Humans? Animal lives were wasted and Human life was put at risk, for what? Profit, as usual, not health care.

Testing drugs on animals does not predict the effect it will have on Humans.

only one in 10,000 research programmes make it to the market'. Moreover, the number of clinical trial failures is certainly not a new phenomenon; for example five years ago, a writer commented: 'After all, at least 30% of all drugs fail clinical trials in phase III' (Peter Mitchell, 'Crash and boom: the rise and fall of biotechnology', Lancet, Vol.350, No.9073, 26 July 1997).

Phase III dosage and effectivemess testing on Humans after animal testing is done.

'...Biotechnology stocks have slumped about 30 percent so far this year after a series of *clinical trial failures and rejections from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration...'.

'U.S. stocks cling to gains, biotech, job data weigh', Yahoo News, 16 May 2002.
* Note: These would have been first tested on animals.

'Vivisectors can quote hundreds of ideas concerning human medicine obtained with the help of animal experimentation. They omit, however, to tell us that these ideas proved useful in understanding human illness only after they had been confirmed by clinical observation: at the time of their formulation, they told us nothing useful whatsoever about human beings'.

Professor Pietro Croce, Vivisection or Science? (London: Zed Books, 1999), p.60.

I love this letter sent to the Derby Evening Telegraph

I would like to thank the Research Defence Society for their interesting revelations but I am a little confused. You see I suffer from arthritis, and nothing my doctor has given me works. In fact, the side effects of some treatments have been very distressing.
My cat also has arthritis, yet the tablets my vet gave her appear to have worked wonders. So, after reading the articles (of the Research Defence Society) I went along to see my vet and asked him for some of these tablets for myself. He laughed at me and said that just because they had cured my cat, that doesn't mean that they are suitable for me.
Last week my neighbour's dog strained his shoulder and could barely walk, but after pain-killing injections he was jumping around like a puppy. I went back to my vet and asked if these injections would do the same for me. He was quite rude and said that medication used on animals and humans are so different.
This has left me very puzzled, because according to the RDS letters, if it's safe for animals then it's safe for us! I'm not sure what to do the next time I'm ill: should I see a doctor or a vet? After all, the principle's the same...isn't it?
Mrs D M, Hucknall

Examples of drugs first tested on animals and then withdrawn...

The Drug Information Bulletin (Il Bollettino d'Informazione sui Farmaci, No. 8 August 1983).
This reports that the registration of 22,621 medical preparations had been revoked i.e., prohibited. All of these had passed the animal testing stage.

The American General Accounting Office (GAO), announced that of all the new drugs that began to be marketed between 1976 and 1985, 52% of these were found to be more dangerous than the pre-marketing experimentation had suggested. Because of this, they were either withdrawn or required stronger warnings.

More here...vivisection-absurd.org.uk...

Animals have been killed in their billions in medical research, so it is only logical to suppose that some useful knowledge in the fight against human disease must have resulted somewhere along the line. Yet this neither automatically proves that these experiments were either vital or irreplaceable...Critics [of vivisection] have likened the success rate of animal research to putting money into a slot machine; put enough in and you will occasionally triumph, but this does not make it either a reliable or logical method of pursuing your goal.[19]

So animals are treated well in vivisection labs?

In one study, the USDA determined that Ohio State University had violated the Animal Welfare Act because approximately forty cats had been injured when identification tags became embedded in their necks. The Ohio State annual report to the USDA of animal use for the relevant period indicated that no animal (including these cats) were subjected to any unrelieved pain or distress. Apparently Ohio State vivisectors did not consider a chain embedded in the flesh caused any suffering or distress...
In another study, researchers did not consider that placing corrosive substances into the eyes or on to the shaved skin of rabbits caused any pain or distress.[66]

vivisection-absurd.org.uk...

the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. Section 24 of the 1986 Act makes it a criminal offence to divulge information on animal experiments.

Isn't that interesting, 'we need to keep our really useful and loving care of our animals in our lab a secret.'

One myth that is supposedly busted is the use of cats and dogs in testing...

Cats were subjected to 1,580 'procedures' in 2001 (Note: animals can be and are used for more than one experiment.
7,945 procedures were carried out on dogs in 2001 - an increase of 4 per cent.
3,986 procedures were performed on primates in 2001 - an increase of 8 per cent.

vivisection-absurd.org.uk...

So not a myth after all...

Another myth from the pro-vivisectionists is it's either an animal or your child...

[One pro-vivisection group] 'produces a video that recounts the stories of numerous children saved, so it claims, as a result of animal experimentation...In sweeping generalities but without facts, the video assures us that the only way to save babies is through the use of animal models. It ends with the death of one child whose life, so it claims, could have been saved, with 'more animal experiments'.
Such scheming PR, which relies solely on emotional appeals, should raise this suspicion: if the facts of the cases are so persuasive and overwhelming, why are they not revealed? We wish to know, truthfully, what animal models have actually done for sick children. Tell us from where these supposed advances arose.
Without facts, vivisection makes no sense. Pick at the edges of the pro-vivisection argument and you will find researchers choosing what is expedient in the short term, i.e., grants and publishing papers, instead of what actually works in the long- term - human solutions'.[114]

So who is using your emotions now?

And your idea of the vivisectionist doing his good works for the good of you is a MYTH...

As Richard Ryder...pointed out, researchers are 'basically conformers who do not question what is expected of them...like most men, they seek security and success, and in order to achieve these ends, they know that it pays to toe the line'. So, if the truth be told, the real goal of animal research is the personal 'welfare' of those involved...
Ultimately, the desecrator of animal life ends up desecrating all life including his own, because he reduces life to discrete mechanisms of measurable quantity.

Andree Collard with Joyce Contrucci, Rape of the Wild (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), p.70.

More here...vivisection-absurd.org.uk...

The whole pharma industry is about nothing but making money...

'When a drug's patent is about to expire, its maker tries to ward off competition by filing frivolous lawsuits against anyone looking to make a low cost, and perfectly legal, version of the pill. They don't really expect to win, but the suit can delay the generic version from hitting the market for up to 30 months - allowing the patent holders to rake in billions in additional, competition-free sales. And the public gets to pay twice: we pay for unnecessarily high-priced drugs, and we pay for the court system they're exploiting to keep us paying the high price'.

More... vivisection-absurd.org.uk...

The idea that testing drugs on animals has increased our health is a myth.
Life expectancy increased has improved considerably in the last hundred yrs, mostly due to improvements in health care, medical measures only playing a small part.
Hospital admissions are increasing, as is the level of chronic sickness in all age groups; more working days are being lost and the number of drug prescriptions issued per person has risen from an average of 4.7 in 1961 to 7.0 in 1985.
Animal experiments have little effect on our health.

'It takes a few decades for long-term side-effects to be revealed, and the biological theories that supported its safe use [HRT] have now been shown to be unfounded...My quote is from a leading article in the British Medical Journal'.
(Source: 'When doctors get it wrong - and drug firms get the profits', The Scotsman, 20 February 2004).

www.scotsman.com...

'Beagles have been gassed until they passed out in secret tests to monitor the effects of a chemical which was banned more than 15 years ago. Confidential documents reveal how the bodies of dogs would convulse violently during recent experiments at the controversial Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratory...'.
(Source: 'Secret lab notes reveal dog cruelty', The Observer, 22 February 2004).

www.guardia...

[edit on 20/7/2006 by ANOK]

I ran out of space...That last link should be

www.guardian.co.uk...

is where you forget your original aims, and shift to a more "interesting target."

(For some reason, the quote function is deleting all of anok's quote when I try to quote.)

Anyway, Anok has a LARGE paragraph with the intro like

"And big pharma is about nothing but profits."


So that now, we begin to see the political nature of food fascism. Obviously, profits are bad, evil, filthy and wrong. How dare they try to feed their families by seeking reimbursements for their work! How DARE they! Shame on the evil capitalist lapdogs (no offense to canines) of the meatist oppressors!

If you ever had a chance at credibility ANOK, you lost it when you implied that that I need to be a communist, in addition to being a food fascist, before I can be politically correct.

See, I feel a lot more validated about my "human-hater" comment a few posts ago. It's NOT just about meat. It's about the whole of the capitalist enterprise that attempts to meet people's felt desires on their own terms, instead of telling them what they are supposed to desire.

That's the core of the whole leftist thought police. Telling people they should feel guilty if they ever want something that's about satisfying their felt needs.

No thanks. I enjoy the rednecks. The food is better, the conversation is more optimistic; there's more freedom of conscience at a nascar rally than there is at a PITA rally.

Like my uncle stu says, "never trust a skinny chef"
.